Neocon?
By Cliff May on the heart of a neoconservative:
I’d argue that the term “neo-conservative,” at this point, merely means someone who (1) believes American power can be a force for good, and (2) that encouraging democracy and freedom in the Middle East is both possible and necessary to safeguard the nation’s long-range interests.
Matt Duss responds appropriately:
I’d argue that the defining characteristic of foreign policy neoconservatism (best elucidated by Kristol and Kagan as “neo-Reaganite,” a term that never stuck) is the belief in American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States should not be constrained by any international norms, as well as an a priori disregard for international institutions, if not the very concept of multilateralism, as a component of that belief.
Given that this ideology has proven disastrous in Iraq, it’s not surprising that Cliff May now wants to redefine “neocon” so broadly as to include, well, me. In other words, May’s new definition as read is quite simply that of a liberal internationalist. Within this broad framework there can be – and, obviously, are — many differences. Welcome aboard, Cliff.
When you’re going down in flames, you might as well try to bring everyone else along.
On a side note, I had the good fortune to take a red state-to-red state flight this morning, Dallas to Omaha. Before the plane took off, nineteen year old behind me started spouting off about how the media refuses to show the good news from Iraq, and how it doesn’t matter that the Arab world hates us. To, I think, my credit, I remained silent.